Dystopian Language and Thought: The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Applied to Created Forms of English
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
DePauw University
Scholarly and Creative Work from DePauw University
Student research Student Work
2014
Dystopian Language and Thought: The Sapir-
Whorf Hypothesis Applied to Created Forms of
English
Kristen Fairchild
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.depauw.edu/studentresearch
Part of the English Language and Literature Commons
Recommended Citation
Fairchild, Kristen, "Dystopian Language and Thought: The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Applied to Created Forms of English" (2014).
Student research. Paper 7.
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Work at Scholarly and Creative Work from DePauw University. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Student research by an authorized administrator of Scholarly and Creative Work from DePauw University. For more
information, please contact bcox@depauw.edu.1
Dystopian Language and Thought:
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Applied to Created Forms of English
Kristen Fairchild
DePauw University
Honor Scholar 401-402: Senior Thesis
April 11, 20142
3
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge and thank my three committee members for their guidance
and encouragement through this process. Additionally, a special thanks to my advisor,
Istvan Csicsery-Ronay Ph.D, for all his extra time and support.4
5
Introduction
The genre of science fiction is a haven for the creation of new worlds, universes, and
projections of the future. Many versions of the future represent dystopian societies. While
the word dystopia often evokes images of hellish landscapes or militarized super-cities, the
word dystopia simply implies “a dis-placement of our reality.”1 Dystopias usually originate
from social or political conditions of the present. Political trends from modern day become
the exaggerated dystopian regime of a fictional future, thereby creating a warning for
readers in the present.2
Authors populate these new dystopian realities with unique cultures and histories.
In order to be effective, these societies must invoke a certain level of plausibility. Language
acts as a reflection of the society it serves, making it an invaluable tool for conveying the
believability and individuality of a fictional society. For authors like J.R.R. Tolkien, creating
a language meant reinventing both vocabulary and grammatical structure. Other authors,
such as Anthony Burgess, used English as the foundation for their new language.
Alterations to common English words, spellings, and phrasing create entirely new dialects
to represent an extreme shift between a modern English-speaking society and the people of
a projected future. For dystopias, or ‘displaced realities,’ deviations from Standard English
indicate societal qualities that alienate the fictional world from our own.
The relationship between a society and its language is reciprocal. Language reflects
the culture that fostered it, but culture is preserved and communicated through language.
This inseparable bond illustrates, among other things, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. As a
cognitive linguistic principle, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis posits that language influences
perception.3 Through this hypothesis, comprehension of new information or emotion6
becomes linked to the words we would use to discuss that information or emotion. From
the cultural perspective, language tints the manner in which people perceive cultural
norms and how they express themselves as members of society.4 One version of the Sapir-
Whorf Hypothesis, linguistic determinism, states that language controls thought. This
control largely stems from the absence of words indicating a concept. Without the word,
the concept does not exist for any person who speaks the language lacking that word. A
softer form of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, linguistic relativity, widens the gap between
language and perception. It suggests that our interpretation of experience shifts based on
linguistic grounding. Language could never prevent a person from perceiving an emotion
or comprehending an idea, but it affects our approach each, and also structures how we
convey those emotions and ideas to others.
The linguistic implications of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis are applicable to the
created languages of fiction. In dystopian works, which are often social or political
statements, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis can expose how characters perceive and interact
with their own societies. The impact of an imagined culture on its constituents, as well as
the perpetuation of that culture through each constituent, exists partially within the
language they speak.
George Orwell explored the deterministic model of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
through the language of Newspeak in 1984. Although the language is in its infancy within
the timeline of the novel, the intent behind Newspeak and its eventual results are clear. The
narrator, Winston, will be among the last Party members in Oceania capable of organizing
thoughts that oppose the Party agenda. Orwell’s precedent for creating a language to reflect
a dystopian society helped begin the trend of created languages in dystopian fiction. In7
years following, Anthony Burgess published A Clockwork Orange, narrated exclusively in a
language he named Nadsat. Nadsat is not a deterministic language, but it reflects the
narrator, Alex’s, reverence for violence. Linguistic relativity reveals how Alex creates a
counter-culture through Nadsat, allowing the artistic portrayal of socially-unacceptable
crimes. In the novel Riddley Walker, Author Russell Hoban designed a language to emulate
thousands of years of societal dissolution following a devastating nuclear war. The
narrator, Riddley, recalls his journey through the wastes of “Inland.” His language reflects a
largely illiterate society that relies on aural histories and mythologies to retain knowledge.
Riddley reads the world through mistranslated technological phrases and unique
mythological metaphors.
The process Orwell began with linguistic determinism in 1984 evolves into the rich
created languages of A Clockwork Orange and Riddley Walker. Orwell attempts to force
characters to conform to a culture through language, while Burgess and Hoban explore the
relationship between language, culture, and the individual. Through linguistic relativity,
Burgess and Hoban create new approaches to their new realities, immersing readers in the
minds of characters whose perception deviates from our own. Each of these worlds, in
some way, exists only through the created language, and if converted into Standard English,
their vitality becomes lost in translation. A breakdown of each language through the Sapir-
Whorf Hypothesis is necessary to reveal the implications of these subtleties for characters
in each novel.8
Linguistic Determinism in 1984
When Orwell created Newspeak for his dystopian novel, 1984, he had clear
intentions for the abbreviated, simplified version of English. He was not crafting a rich,
lyrical language with poetic value or evocative imagery. In the case of other created
languages, such Tokien’s Sindarin, authors attempt to construct a vocabulary vast enough
to convince readers that it is genuine and as capable of conveying meaning as any real
language from our own world. Newspeak is quite literally the opposite of an “acceptable
alternative” to English or any other language. Why would Orwell design a language so
limiting in scope that it is impractical for narration and inaccessible to readers? The answer
lies in his intentions for Newspeak, or rather, that he has intentions for Newspeak. The
language feels manipulated, interrupted— the opposite of created languages designed to
convince readers that they arose naturally within the fictional world they represent.
Orwell’s plan for Newspeak was to use the language to control the thoughts,
perceptions, and communication of Party members in the fictional dystopia of Oceania.
Newspeak operates as a literal expression of linguistic determinism. As a specific form of
the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, linguistic determinism dictates: “the language people speak
helps determine the very way they think about their physical and social world.”5 It is the
stronger of the two Sapir-Whorf doctrines, the second being linguistic relativity. The
deterministic relationship between language and perception is essential to the theory of
Newspeak. In the most extreme sense, if a person has no word to represent a concept,
whether that concept is a physical object or abstract feeling, then the concept simply does
not exist for that person. If a person has no word to express the emotion of sadness, that
person cannot experience sadness if linguistic determinism is indeed a true theory. Orwell9
designs Newspeak under the assumption that linguistic determinism is a real phenomenon
that impacts people of all languages. He deletes words and institutes political slogans in
order to control how the Party members of 1984 perceive their lives and express
themselves.
Linguistic determinism hinges on a contentious assumption, but as Clark has argued,
“Whorf seemed to take for granted that language is primarily an instrument of thought.
[However], language is first and foremost and instrument of communication… it is only
derivatively an instrument of thought.”6 Ingsoc, the political party controlling Oceania,
appears to operate under the same supposition as Whorf, but after many generations of
Party members, will Big Brother or the Inner Party actually succeed in removing
thoughtcrime from Outer Party members? An analysis of Newspeak must consider the
language’s ability to determine perception, but also explore the damaging societal
implications of applied linguistic determinism. Most importantly, can Newspeak even
function as a language?
Because Orwell’s goal of linguistic control for Newspeak differs from the
conventional intentions of a created language, Newspeak requires evaluation of its
deterministic ability. If Newspeak is a “successful” language in terms of linguistic
determinism, then it controls the thoughts and lives of all its practitioners according to its
specific design. Orwell uses Newspeak sparingly throughout the text; a few Newspeak
words such as thoughtcrime or doublethink work their way into Winston’s narration
occasionally. The main narrative relies on the language of modern English. This
juxtaposition of two forms of English within a single novel allows for another form of
analysis for Newspeak— it may also be quantified by its limitation of expression compared10
to the modern English. Does the limited vocabulary of Newspeak even make it a viable
language option? The linguistic ability of Newspeak can thus be evaluated by two
questions: ‘Can Newspeak control perception as intended?’ and ‘Can the society of 1984
survive exclusively using Newspeak?’
One other proposed intention for Newspeak is also worth noting: the element of
parody. A prominent inspiration for the simplified grammatical and lexical structures of
Orwell’s Newspeak was a reduced language created by linguist Charles Ogden.7 His revised
language, called “Basic English” contained only the 850 that words he deemed essential for
communication. Developed in 1930, Basic English would theoretically provide a stream-
lined, accessible language to facilitate communication, primarily for the purpose of
business, between Britain and its many colonies. Ogden heralded his creation as the birth
of a potential “second language” for millions of people formerly divided by their native
tongues.8
At first, Orwell was keen to the potential benefits of Basic English, and in 1942 he
wrote and produced a radio program discussing the language. He even designed a set of
lessons after corresponding with Ogden, himself. However, Orwell’s support of the
language declined and morphed into ambivalence as he observed its implementation.
While Newspeak is a language constructed to control the minds of its speakers, the
language is also a parody of Ogden’s Basic English.9 Howard Fink suggests that the most
obvious relation between Basic English and Newspeak is the radically reduced vocabulary:
“Orwell is frankly suspicious of Ogden's skepticism about the contribution of abstract
vocabulary to exactness in language: 'reality' seems here to be equated by Ogden with
'simplicity'. Orwell underlines and attacks this idea by a parody-exaggeration of Ogden's11
programme to ultimately ridiculous limit.”10 There are other, more specific indications of
Ogden’s influence in Newspeak. In a comparison of the two languages, Fink notes that shall
and will are simplified to include only the latter in Basic English, but Orwell expands this
trend in Newspeak by dropping should/shall for the more “definitive” form would/will. The
difference in these simplifications lies in the reasoning— Ogden views shall as an
unnecessary distraction, while Orwell indicates that should/shall allows people too much
freedom of intention.11 Each of Orwell’s manipulations creates the most degrading,
negative implications of Ogden’s simplifications. Orwell even takes the time to detail
Newspeak for readers, twisting Ogden’s approach to simplification into a malevolent set of
guidelines for mental enslavement.
Orwell’s meticulous outline of Newspeak does not actually exist within the main
narrative of 1984. With the sporadic, limited implementation of Newspeak throughout the
novel, the new language is an occasional distraction to the modern English prose. Rather
than force Newspeak into the narration of 1984, Orwell wrote an appendix to the novel
entitled “The Principles of Newspeak” in which he detailed three separate sets of
vocabulary that account for every existing word in the language. It is worth noting that
Orwell’s thorough explanation of Newspeak would be impossible to convey through the
language itself, potentially justifying Orwell’s decision to separate the appendix from the
plot of 1984.
Orwell names the three vocabulary groups A, B, and C respectively. Words that fall
under the A vocabulary are the basic words required for day-to-day activities. Simple
nouns like dog and pot, as well as verbs like walk or hit remained, but “their meanings were
far more rigidly defined.”12 Many of these words could interchangeably be used for any part12
of speech: noun, verb, adjective, or adverb. This simplification leads to many noun-verb
hybrids. Orwell provides the example of knife which acts as both noun and verb, replacing
the word cut.13 Words in the A vocabulary can also be negated through the prefix “un” or
strengthened by the prefixes “plus and double plus.” No irregular verbs exist in
Newspeak— all past tense verbs are modified by “-ed.” The addition of “-er” and “-est”
accounts for the creation of all adjectives in the A vocabulary. Hypothetical tenses such as
“would” and “should” are also absent from the A vocabulary.
The B vocabulary contains exclusively compound words created for the party’s
political agenda. With appropriate alteration, these words could be used for any part of
speech. Some irregular conjugations exist within the B vocabulary, but they are mostly
proper nouns. Also unlike the A vocabulary, these political words have subtly complex
meanings and inherent implications for fluent Newspeak practitioners. For example, Orwell
explains: “All words grouping themselves round the concept of liberty and equality, for
instance, were contained in the single word crimethink, while all words grouping
themselves round the concepts of objectivity and rationalism were contained in the single
word oldthink.”14 The specific titles of various party organizations also fall under the B
vocabulary and all of them are hybrid abbreviations of complete labels. For example,
Recdep became the official title of the Records Department, and similar abbreviations are
applicable to all other party departments. Orwell created these catchy labels to emulate our
own world: “Even in the early decades of the twentieth century, telescoped words and
phrases have been one of the characteristic features of political language.”15 He cites the
language of totalitarian regimes as the leading proponent of this technique. While these
titles convey a concrete understanding for practitioners of Newspeak, they are not overly13
complicated and thus do not invite significant contemplation or reflection. One could say
the word Recdep and implicitly, almost subconsciously, understand the specific
department, but not question why or how it possesses its title.
The C vocabulary is strictly scientific and technical terms. These words are not used
in everyday speech because they have no place in common conversation, according to the
Party. Rigidly defined, they are only applicable to the specific technical concepts that they
represent. Often, only people in the field that utilizes certain technical words are privy to
their definitions, or even their existence. Because each technical word is applicable to a
specific field, it is unlikely that any one person would be aware of all of them. Instead, each
technician possesses a small arsenal of technical terminology which he or she has no
reason to share with others. Science as an encompassing form of knowledge ceases to exist.
Orwell also asserts that the existence of science is unnecessary: “any meaning that [science]
could possibly bear being already sufficiently covered by the word Ingsoc.”16
In order to understand the Orwell’s goals for the three vocabularies of Newspeak,
one must be aware of Orwell’s own theories of rhetoric and political language. In many
ways, Newspeak is a continuation of his complaints towards the realm of political English.
If one were to distinguish the strongest deterministic tool of Newspeak, it would be
reduction of available vocabulary. At first, Newspeak appears to be an utter contradiction
of the qualities of English that Orwell critiques in his essay, “Politics and the English
Language.”17 In general, Orwell claims that English, particularly in political writing, has
become over-saturated with words of vague or no real meaning— literally too many words.
The failure of political language is compounded as these words appear in succession,
drowning any concrete statement or image in subjectivity, or even nonsense. Orwell14
accuses long-winded academic and political writers of two distinct failings: “The first is a
staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and
cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to
whether his words mean anything or not.”18
Among the types of words or phrases that Orwell labels as chief sources of
vagueness are “dying metaphors” and “meaningless words.” Orwell explains that dying
metaphors provide an image intended to solidify a concept. However, dying metaphors are
clichéd and archaic— they often relate to people, places, or occasions that are no longer
relevant or understood by the communicator or the receiver. He provides the simple
example of Achilles’ heel, a phrase popularly understood to mean “fatal weakness.” In order
to understand the connection between image and concept, one must be familiar with
Achilles and his tragic fall at the conclusion of The Iliad. While The Iliad might be one of the
most important epics in human history, it is not unreasonable to assume that many people
would be unfamiliar with Achilles. As the image source fades into obscurity, the dying
metaphor persists and becomes equated with “fatal weakness” for no discernible reason.
One can convey the concept to another without either party understanding why or how the
metaphor has meaning. Orwell considers the tactic a lazy crutch for political writers that
are too lazy or ill-equipped to create novel, relevant metaphors.
“Meaningless words” suffer from a plight similar to the “dying metaphors.” Rather
than hinge on a waning image, meaningless words lack a stable foundational concept or
visual grounding. According to Orwell, these words are completely subjective in meaning;
therefore each person who utilizes the same empty word will have a different definition for
that word. One example he provides is the word democracy: “In the case of a word like15
democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted…
when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every
kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that
word if it were tied down to any one meaning.”19 It would seem that the strength of the
word stems from its flexibility— it can be molded to suit a variety of purposes.
Ideally, Newspeak would contain no meaningless words and no metaphors. The A
vocabulary relies on specific, concrete images and actions relevant to normal daily activity,
while the C vocabulary contains only specialized science terminology. The influence of
meaningless words and empty metaphors emerge in the political terms of the B
vocabulary— the words blackwhite and Ingsoc are perfect examples. In Goldstein’s book,
Orwell explains:
[Blackwhite] has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it
means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white in contradiction of the
plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black
is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe
that black is white, and forget that one has ever believed the contrary.20
Notice that the meaning of blackwhite changes depending on the subject of its application—
a trait similar to democracy. Is blackwhite a true empty word? No. It was designed by the
Party for specific purposes and is more constrained as a consequence of that design. The
word requires the metaphorical image of black and white as a foundation. The influence of
an empty word schema exists in its flexibility to alternate between extremes depending on
circumstance. Party members understand through bellyfeel, or intuition, that blackwhite
constitutes a good Party trait, but negative when directed towards the opposition.16
Ingsoc is a term that inspires a much broader range of meaning without the
metaphorical foundation of an image. It barely resembles its predecessor, “English
Socialism,” in sound or spelling. Also, the word socialism clearly falls under the category of
empty words. All concepts considered good by Party members in the year 1984 can be
attributed to Ingsoc. In this sense, “good” also entails every aspect of Party life. Many of
these attributes are not explicitly stated and instead require a sense of blind Party faith to
understand. Ingsoc has numerous connotations and is applicable to most situations,
adjusted for the context of that situation. The Thought Police can arrest Party members for
defying Ingsoc, allowing for an endless possibility of criminal offenses.
Orwell recognizes the potentially manipulative influence of metaphor as a tool of
communication between two or more individuals. The metaphorical implications present
in many of the B vocabulary words indicate that the most politically charged words in
Newspeak require metaphorical grounding. He creates the word bellyfeel to describe this
relationship. However, Orwell’s use of metaphor is incomplete. Eventually, the prevalence
of “empty” relationships could cause Newspeak to unravel. The metaphorical grounds of
the B vocabulary stem from modern English concepts— words that will no longer exist in
Newspeak within a few generations. If linguistic determinism is a true concept in Oceania,
then even the subconscious workings of bellyfeel will not be able to compensate for the
references to words that have long ceased to exist. This inconsistency is apparent when
analyzing Newspeak only through Orwell’s own views of metaphor, political language, and
linguistic determinism. A more complete perspective of metaphor, proposed by George
Lakoff and Mark Johnson, will reveal further flaws in Orwell’s deterministic language.17
For a language that supposedly professes an absence of metaphor and utter reliance
on objective understanding, Newspeak relies heavily on metaphorical representations,
especially in the B vocabulary. More so than a literal presence of metaphors in the
Newspeak vocabulary, the language also implicitly includes metaphor. Practitioners of
Newspeak cannot understand their own language without relying on metaphorically-based
conceptual systems. Some of these systems are unique to Newspeak, while others survived
the transfer from Oldspeak to Newspeak. The disruption of metaphors prevalent from the
older form of English has the greatest potential to undermine Newspeak because they are
only a manifestation of the enduring conceptual foundations of perception.
The term prolefeed is part of the B vocabulary and describes the superficial and
crude entertainment (books, movies, pornography) released in large quantities to satisfy
and distract the proles from their impoverished lives. If prolfeed translates into “food for
proles,” then it also implies the action of consumption. In modern English, or Oldspeak, this
process can be described: “the proles consumed the provided entertainment.” The verb
“consumed” means “to ingest” in the literal sense. Obviously, the proles are not eating their
pornography. In Oldspeak, we reconcile and understand the meaning of “consume” related
to entertainment as distinct from the consumption of food. Not only can we make this
assumption, but our basic concept of consume provides a rich metaphorical foundation for
the treatment of entertainment.
In their book, Metaphors We Live By, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson explore the
various types of metaphors present in the English language. According to Lakoff and
Johnson, the word prolfeed could exemplify an “Ontological Metaphor.” These metaphors
rely on an object: “Understanding our experiences in terms of objects and substances18
allows us to pick out parts of our experience and treat them as discrete entities or
substance of a uniform kind. Once we can identify our experiences as entities… we can
refer to them, categorize them, group them, and quantify them— and, by this means,
reason about them.”21 They are often quick to point out common motifs that occur within a
metaphorical category. One ontological motif is the metaphor “Ideas are Food.”22 While the
trashy books and magazines are physical objects, they convey ideas that induce an
experience in the reader. An erotica novel could have a juicy story. They even provide the
example: “He devoured the book.”23 Thus, the word prolefeed is a very direct representation
of an “Ideas are Food” ontological metaphor.
Prolefeed exemplifies a written manifestation of metaphorical conception— one of
many that Lakoff and Johnson expose and categorize. However, they have a grander goal
for Metaphors We Live By than a series of lists. While a written or spoken metaphor can
convey a notion from one person to another, the conceptual metaphor itself allows for
internal understanding. Simply put, Lakoff and Johnson assert that people think in
metaphor and that abstract concepts are difficult or impossible to grasp without a
grounding in metaphor. What then, is the origin of essential metaphor? Culture. Lakoff and
Johnson are adamant that the two are inseparable:
Cultural assumptions, values, and attitudes are not a conceptual overlay
which we may or may not place upon experience as we choose. It would be
more correct to say that all experience is cultural through and through, that
we experience our ‘world’ in such a way that our culture is already present in
the very experience itself.2419
Metaphors dictate experience and culture dictates metaphor. Lakoff and Johnson’s
assertions of the relationship between cultural metaphor and experience are similar are
indicative of linguistic relativity. Cultural metaphors are thus a less intrusive. The two are
distinguishable through their respective “primary building blocks.” The basic unit of
metaphor requires at least two words, but often more. Within the realm of linguistic
determinism, the alteration or removal of a single word controls thought.
Assuming that Lakoff and Johnson’s conclusions for cultural metaphor are
completely, or at least partially correct, what are the implications for Newspeak? Ingsoc
created the language and use it as an extension of their designed culture. It is important to
distinguish that the implementation of Newspeak is not complete in Oceania in the year
1984 and older party members, such as Winston, were initially influenced by English
culture. Not only do remnants of English culture survive in elderly proles and Party
members, but Newspeak is derivative of modern English and thus, English culture.
Recall the two most prominent tactics of linguistic determinism utilized in the A and
C vocabularies: the reduction of total words and the rigid, objective definitions of
remaining words. Within these truncated lists exist many essential words that are probably
not as “objective” as Ingsoc intended. Two examples of critical words include “time” and
“good.” According to Lakoff and Johnson’s breakdown, both of these concepts require
structural and orientational metaphors to facilitate comprehension in modern English.
They are intangible abstract. English and culture concurrently developed metaphorical
strategies that allow people to understand and communicate “good” and “time.”
Lakoff and Johnson ascribe structural metaphor to time. They describe structural
metaphor as “cases where one concept is metaphorically structured in terms of another.”2520
What does it mean to have time? How do we approach this question? Lakoff and Johnson
provide three structural metaphors that indicate how cultural English answers these
questions. They include:
Time is Money
Time is a Limited Resource
Time is a Valuable Commodity26
The theme unifying these three metaphors is “time should not be wasted.” Lakoff and
Johnson claim that this theme for time arose in industrialized societies as a consequence of
the connection between labor and work: “we act as if time is a valuable commodity— a
limited resource, even money— we conceive of time that way.”27 The approach to time
within Ingsoc contradicts these metaphors.
In the early pages of 1984, Orwell implies that the culture of Ingsoc is already
damaging the concept of time. Winston struggles to recall the date or his age, admitting to
himself: “it was never possible nowadays to pin down any date within a year or two.”28 As a
profession, Winston revises historical dates and facts, destroying timely, logical
progressions of events. Ingsoc’s “socialist” approach to labor also undermines the “time is
money/valuable/limited” metaphor because many professions follow the logic of “work for
the sake of work,” not “work for the sake of profit.” Winston spends his days at Recdep
making arbitrary alterations to stories, many of which have already been altered. Orwell
also explains the useless expenditure of resources in war: “The problem was how to keep
the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must
be produced, but they need not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving
this was by continuous warfare.”29 Culturally, labor is not precious; it does not yield21
essential results. The time spent laboring need not be efficient— it must only occupy time.
As stated previously, endless date revisions undermine any point of reference for time.
Lakoff and Johnson also posit the metaphor of “Time as a Field,” which accounts for phrases
such as “passing through time.” The pointless utilization of labor over time conflicts with
metaphorical quantification of time. Even before the implementation of Newspeak, Ingsoc
culture is incompatible with English metaphor. Because metaphor is not supposed to be
present in Newspeak, it is a logical assumption that phrases used to quantify and visualize
time.
If time is present in the A vocabulary, then Ingsoc has recognized that it is required
for daily tasks. Without metaphorical context, time can only be represented by the
changing of numbers on a clock. In the case of Winston and other adult party members, the
metaphorical experience of “time” is still relevant. Winston’s life becomes disorienting and
mundane because his external environment does not permit him to utilize the rich, culture-
founded metaphors of his youth. The gradual implementation of Newspeak
In the years since Lakoff and Johnson first revealed their “Conceptual Metaphor
Theory,” other cognitive linguists and psychologists have used the CMT pretext for their
own research. An experiment conducted in 2012 utilized functional magnetic resonance
imaging (fMRI) to measure brain changes in response to sensory metaphor.30 Participants
in the study listened to series of sentences containing a texture metaphors (She had a
rough day). They also listened to control sentences that conveyed the same meaning as
their paired metaphors, but without using metaphorical phrasing (She had a bad day). The
fMRI images indicated activation in somatosensory texture-selective areas, but no varied
activiation in language, visual, or bisensory texture-selective areas. There was also no22
distinction between activation of classical language areas caused by the metaphor
compared to the control.
This study provides strong evidence to support the Conceptual Metaphor Theory.
Because the sensory metaphor sentence activated all the same areas as the control
sentence, superficial understanding was consistent between the two. The additional
activation of texture-specific areas induced by the texture metaphor implies that the
sentence induced an experience akin to the sensation of touching the literal texture. The
metaphor elevates the sentence beyond instigating a casual understanding of words; it
becomes the origin of a vivid experience grounded in perception. Other studies provide
similar evidence for Conceptual Metaphor Theory. A series of seven studies conducted at
the University of Rochester suggest: “the cognitive representation of anger is systematically
related to the cognitive representation of heat.”31 Literally, anger lives up to the metaphor
of “hot-headed” within our perception as English speakers.
If we were to translate the sentence example provided in the first experiment (She
had a rough day) into Newspeak, it might become “She had an ungood day.” The literal
implication of the Newspeak sentence is, in general, a weaker message than the modern
English equivalent. Metaphorical grounding also extends beyond textual sensations:
“Cognitive linguistic studies have proposed that many of the source domain within
conceptual metaphors are grounded in recurring patterns of bodily activity and
experience.”32 Newspeak is incapable of utilizing any of the sensory connections integral to
metaphorical understanding. Party members perceive sensations such as touch and smell,
but Newspeak does not utilize those sensations for metaphorical grounding. Metaphorical
grounding is not unique to English and can be found in numerous other world languages.3323
The widespread prevalence of these metaphors implies that they are integral for effective
communication and sympathetic understanding between conversing persons. In the case of
the texture metaphor, the use of the word “rough” added an additional layer of cognitive
processing to the standard language activation. The exclusion of sensory and other
metaphors from Newspeak places the language at a significant disadvantage to modern
English and other world languages. Newspeak denies the richness of experience attributed
to sensation and prevents communicating parties from conveying or receiving
conversation that is not superficial or contextually hollow. Party members literally have
less opportunity and capacity to connect with each other.
Other tactics in Newspeak utilize specific linguistic hypotheses in conjunction with
determinism. For example, Orwell’s simplified method of negation is consistent with a
concept that Lakoff refers to as “negative transportation.”34 This concept describes the
direct correlation between the literal space separating a subject from its negative modifier
and the implied strength of the negation. For example:
I am unsatisfied.
I am not satisfied.
In the first sentence, the negative modifier is physically closer to its target, actually
attaching itself to the target. The second sentence displays a greater physical separation
within the sentence. The negative implication of the second sentence appears less than the
first. An example of a far-reaching negative modifier would be:
I wouldn’t be satisfied.
Two words separate satisfied from the negative modifier, and the resulting sentence is the
weakest yet. Orwell sought to remove subjectivity from language, forcing Party members to24
speak in absolutes, or near-absolutes. By simplifying all negations to the prefix “-un,” he
creates the strongest possible negative through the closest possible proximity. Assuming
the linguistic determinism holds true, the proximity of negative modifiers in Newspeak
leads to the perception of only the most intense negation of a verb, adjective, or noun. The
concept of “negative transportation” applied to linguistic determinism suggests that Party
members in Oceania are only capable of approaching life through absolutes. However, it is
worth mentioning that negating a positive (ungood), regardless of the strength of the
negation, is distinct in definition from an actual negative (bad). Orwell’s style of negation
could be one example of successful linguistic determinism because it limits the overall
range of words and forces speakers to adhere to the strict definitions of words that remain,
along with the negations of those remaining words.
Perhaps the most iconic word from the entire Newspeak vocabulary is doublethink.
It constitutes how party members are supposed to process information, reiterate party
agendas, even live their lives. Orwell describes doublethink:
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s
mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… The process has to be
conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also
has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence
of guilt… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them… to deny
the existence of objective reality and all the while take account of the reality
which one denies— all this is indispensably necessary.35
The largest indicator of Orwell’s attempt at linguistic determinism through doublethink is
the profession that the process must be both ‘conscious’ and ‘unconscious.’ This concept25
can be applied to the verbal declarations made by the Party and also to the written
alterations made to public records. Winston’s job with Recdep is the generation of
doublethink on the page. One of the first, simplest examples is the rationing of chocolate:
“The Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise… that there would be no ration during 1984.
Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grams
to twenty at the end of the present week.”36 Through awareness, Winston is practicing the
first half of doublethink. However, he does not accept the contradiction, consciously or
unconsciously, and instead declares it fallacious.
Early in the novel, Orwell establishes that Winston is resilient to doublethink. After
his torturous stay at the Ministry of Love, Winston changes. With the final page of the novel,
Orwell implies that O’Brian has successfully conditioned Winston to utilize doublethink:
“But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the
victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”37 By achieving “victory over himself,” Winston
is purging all of the faults of Ingsoc that he previously could not ignore. Is it a reasonable
expectation that Winston ever be capable of actively adopting, or passively being
conditioned to practice doublethink? Can a person reject their former mode of thought
processing? Is it even possible to unconsciously accept erroneous statements, or even shift
ones unconscious recollection of the “correct” history? Many psychological case studies
would argue not.
A number of case studies investigating how people respond to true and false written
statements have been completed in the last few decades, especially as the ability to
measure neural processing has improved. One study conducted in 2012 explored the
relationship between a reader’s prior knowledge and the evaluation of truth: “The decisive26
question of this study is whether sentence-related factual world knowledge that is stored in
long-term memory also becomes automatically activated upon reading and understanding
the sentence, and whether this knowledge is used to evaluate the truth status of the
respective sentence.”38 Results from the experiment suggest that when a person reads a
sentence, they “automatically” activate information from long-term memory to aid in
comprehension of the sentence and affirmation of semantic consistency. However, the
utilization of other long-term memories to qualify a statement as ‘true’ or ‘false’ is not
always automatic. The validation of truth is goal-oriented, and thus must be prompted. For
people who are aware that they must determine truth, the validation does become
automatic.
In another study conducted by David Rapp in 2007, experiments were designed to
measure the impact of reader prior knowledge on their response to false statements on a
moment-by-moment basis. The first study of the experiment indicated: “participants
overall exhibited reading slowdowns when stories contained inaccurate historical
outcomes.”39 At least within the first study, these ‘inaccurate historical outcomes’ were
obvious because they naturally invoked reader historical knowledge. The second study had
similar results: “prior knowledge use was encouraged with a preactivation task preceding
each story. The pattern of reading latencies resembled that for Experiment 1.”40 Even in
cases where readers were less apt to naturally utilize prior knowledge of historical truth to
evaluate a sentence, a simple cue generated the same slowness effect. Conversely, the final
experiment suggested that in situations where readers had no prior topic knowledge, their
speed of reading was unaffected by false passages. Results from this experiment suggest
that readers consciously recognize and qualify false statements when they have prior27
knowledge of the truth. If the prior knowledge is strong enough, it disrupts and alerts
readers to false statements even without prompting.
The two studies portray different perspectives of truth qualification. The 2012 study
suggests that unprompted recognition of truth is not automatic. However, it can become an
automatic process if the reader is prompted to identify truth before reading the passage..
Rapp’s indicates that when prior knowledge conflicts with sentence content,
comprehension or evaluation of that content slows. An interesting distinction is the
reliance on priming apparent in the 2012 study, but unnecessary for Rapp’s conclusions.
Results from these studies provide insight into the potential success or failure of
doublethink as an imposable system of perception.
As stated previously, doublethink requires unconscious and conscious participation
from Party members. If not prompted to evaluate historical, lexical, or logical correctness, a
Party member will automatically process the mere meaning of a statement. However, they
must be prompted for truth evaluation to become automatic. This prompting implies a
conscious relationship between a Party member and his/her ascribing of truth to a new
concept, regardless of whether that concept is true or not.
Rapp’s study explains that in passages that clearly oppose reader knowledge, the
reader slows reading speed in recognition of the disparity. This situation would not be an
uncommon occurrence for a Party member. Winston experiences and perpetuates the
altering of historical truth everyday at Recdep. The earlier example of sugar rationing is
only one example of the written historical inconsistencies that Party members read each
day. Rapp’s experiment suggests that when Winston reads the new truth: ‘the chocolate
ration will be decreased from thirty grams to twenty,’ he will take longer to read the28
sentence because it contradicts his established knowledge that the chocolate ration be
fixed for the entire year. Rapp’s findings also indicate that Party members not as familiar
with Ingsoc’s chocolate promises would be less likely to hesitate because they lack a strong
prevalence of prior knowledge. All in all, this interaction is inseparable from conscious
perception.
The level of conscious perception, interpretation, and priming indicated by both
studies implies that Party members, especially older members with strong prior
knowledge, will always have some conscious element interacting with perception of truth.
It would also be difficult to consciously believe in contradictory ideas because one will
always exist as a negation to a prior knowledge. doublethink beliefs cannot be consciously
equivalent in the face of prior knowledge, nor can they unconsciously be prescribed as true
or false. Of course, party members can still consciously practice doublethink, but this
implies that doublethink is not unconsciously influencing perception.
Doublethink is also incompatible with the Cognitive Dissonance Hypothesis. Donald
Auster, one of the many researchers whose research supports the hypothesis, described
Cognitive Dissonance as such:
[Cognitive Dissonance’s] pertinent features are based on the simple and well-
established fact that an individual strives for consistency within himself. His
opinions and attitudes tend to exist in clusters that are internally consistent.
The presence of dissonance gives rise to pressures to reduce or eliminate
dissonance. This occurs because dissonance among cognitive elements is
psychologically uncomfortable, which in itself motivates the individual to
reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance.4129
A disturbed mind placates itself by evaluating two conflicting concepts and making one
subservient to the other— one becomes true, the other false. This psychological tactic is a
direct opposite to doublethink. Orwell’s tactic derives peace from maintaining equal beliefs
in multiple opposing concepts. It would be unreasonable to assume that years of language
manipulation and doublethink could shift human tendency away from cognitive dissonance.
A study conducted in 2010 identified certain behaviors performed by primates as attempts
to reconcile cognitive dissonance.42 If the necessity to assuage cognitive dissonance arises
without sophisticated language, it cannot be removed from human instinct by
implementing the verbal system of doublethink. Orwell’s pillar for Newspeak cannot
become an unconscious, automated process.
Orwell’s attempt at linguistic determinism crumbles with the failure of doublethink.
For example, without true doublethink it is unlikely that thoughtcrime will ever cease to
exist among Party members. Thought Police will always be necessary to impose law. In
naturally processing opposing sources of information, Party members unconsciously fall
into thoughtcrime by processing historical discrepancies and then consciously commit
thoughtcrime through evaluation of those discrepancies. If the lifestyle and thought
processing inspired by doublethink must be imposed and maintained by an outside force,
then it is a failure as a self-sustaining example of linguistic determinism and undermines
many other aspects of Newspeak.
In a brief article entitled “Thoughtcrime,” William Knopp articulates an
inconsistency between Newspeak and its intended purpose of linguistic determinism.
Knopp operates under the assumption that linguistic determinism is possible and
occurring among practitioners of Newspeak. He finds this premise problematic when30
applied to the B vocabulary. He claims that with the A and C vocabularies established: “all
that would be necessary for the users of the ‘B’ vocabulary to do in order that no
thoughtcrime would ever again occur is not to pass on their language to any other
persons.”43 If Ingsoc’s ultimate goal with the A and C vocabulary is to diminish and
eventually eliminate any instances of thoughtcrime, then why allow the existence of words
used to describe criminal act? Only those with knowledge of the B vocabulary,
thoughtcrime specifically, will be capable of committing said crime.
Knopp also makes the practical observation that the existence and power of the
Thought Police proves that thoughtcrime is anticipated.44 People higher up in the party—
the people most responsible for defining thoughtcrime— assume that thoughtcrime is
impossible to eradicate. As a potential compromise to these inconsistencies, Knopp proffers
the idea that thoughtcrime must exist in Oceania because a state must “maintain order” to
be a state.45 Without thoughtcrime and no laws to enact, a state is unnecessary and cannot
exist. Knopp touches on an interesting conclusion about the relationship between normal
Party members and the Inner Party members, but he stops short of realizing it. It is
possible that the Inner Party realizes that Ignsoc and Newspeak are not systems that can
maintain themselves.
As explained previously, the ineffective tactic of doublethink condemns all Party
members to a life of thoughtcrime because human processing of conflicting facts relies on
both conscious and unconscious recognition of inequality. The ability to unconsciously
accept two contradictory statements becomes impossible because it is incompatible with
the actual method in which the brain approaches those statements. If Party members
cannot passively avoid thoughtcrime through the deterministic tatctic of doublethink, they31
must actively avoid thoughtcrime and consciously reason that two opposing events could
both occur. Maintaining such a lifestyle requires rigorous mental fortitude and an external
force to instigate that mental regimen. Because consciously practicing doublethink is an
addition to the stressful state of cognitive dissonance, a person would not choose
doublethink without good reason. For Party members, that reason is fear. The Thought
Police, public executions, and vaporization are all classic tactics of subjugation utilized by a
totalitarian regime.
Even assuming that every Party member never sticks a single toe out of line, a
higher authority would still be necessary to hold Oceania together. If Newspeak somehow
became the dominant language by 2050, as intended by Ingsoc, communication and
thought would be too stunted to maintain a large, organized society. Even before the
implementation of Newspeak, the socialist/ totalitarian culture of Ingsoc undermined
essential conceptual metaphors such as “Time is Money/ a Valuable Resource.” Cultures
and metaphors have been evolving for hundreds of years, with reciprocating influences on
each other, but Ingsoc snuffs that evolution. No culturally relevant metaphor for time will
arise if Newspeak adheres to Orwell’s design. The only novel metaphors in Newspeak exist
in the B vocabulary and they all serve a specific political agenda, such as blackwhite and
prolfeed. Other metaphorical words from the B vocabulary connect to modern English
words that will no longer exist when Newspeak is fully implemented.
The ultimate lack of metaphor leaves Party members incapable of communicating
abstract concepts and, if linguistic determinism is true, they will also have very poor grasp
of those concepts. Intangible, but essential concepts such as time, ideas (ideas are food/
plants), even life (life is a container/ gambling game) would be difficult to appreciate.4632
Arguably, the concept of “idea” might have been excluded from Newspeak, being another
word covered by Ingsoc. Phrases like “to be full of life” or “the odds are against me”47 would
be lost to Party members. It is likely that the only conceptualization of life would be the
opposite of death. Life loses its flavor and in turn Party members could be less capable of
treasuring their individuality and existence. In this regard, Big Brother would probably be
satisfied with the complacent hoard of drones. But, if every single party member were to
lack these fundamental conceptual systems would they have enough momentum to keep
society running?
It’s difficult to conceptualize a society scraping along through routine labor and a
bare-minimum of resources, maintaining itself through Newspeak communication alone.
What if a plague were to disturb this society, or some other natural disaster? Doctors and
scientists would have a severely limited capacity to respond to the crisis because they lack
the technical terminologies to approach a foreign scientific adversary. The lack of
positional and spatial metaphor could inhibit a scientist’s potential for spatial reasoning.
Even the creation of fresh ideas to confront the disaster would be compromised by
Newspeak. In order to keep the Party from crumbling at the first sign of stress, an
organized external group, like the thought police or Inner Party, must guide the entire
Party through adversity.
The foundation of Newspeak, doublethink, is an impossible practice and requires an
aggressive enforcer to remain relevant. The limitations of Newspeak leave society crippled
and inept, again requiring the close monitoring of a third party. Not only does Newspeak
fail to completely determine the thoughts of Party members, it damages society enough
that any disturbance could have devastating consequences. In designing a deterministic33
and limited language, the Inner Party and Big Brother create a civilization without
integrity— a body of laborers incapable of caring for themselves, but also psychologically
predisposed to minor insurrections. If Knopp is correct and the Thought Police must exist
in order to preserve Oceania’s status as a “state,” then the failure of doublethink and
thoughtcrime is irrelevant. However, because of the weaknesses inherent in the rest of
Newspeak, the Inner Party and Thought Police consign themselves to actively organize and
protect the wretched and stunted Outer Party population. Their responsibilities extend
beyond dishing out punishment. Newspeak might have made the masses easier to
subjugate, but it also made them susceptible to collapse. There can be no state if the
populace crumbles.
Recalling Orwell’s animosity for Ogden’s “Basic English,” the failure of Newspeak to
function as a language is inevitable. If Newspeak is Orwell’s parody of an inadequate
language, then Newspeak couldn’t possibly constitute a successful language. It stifles
perceptive experience, but also fails to control crimethink. With his language, Orwell is able
to expose readers to linguistic techniques that he finds particularly hazardous while
condemning their practice.You can also read
